Received: from mail1.expertrade.com (r87-43-dsl.sea.lightrealm.net
	[216.122.43.87])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2D0IRx03265
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:18:28 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from d.wall@computer.org)
Received: from reggae (reggae.expertrade.com [216.122.43.90])
	by mail1.expertrade.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA10091
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:21:03 -0800
Message-ID: <001e01c0ab53$1c6e4d80$5a2b7ad8@expertrade.com>
Reply-To: "David Wall" <d.wall@computer.org>
From: "David Wall" <d.wall@computer.org>
To: <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Subject: JDBC autocommit versus own commits performance
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:18:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0AB10.0E18B2E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Archive-Number: 200103/106
X-Sequence-Number: 1267

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0AB10.0E18B2E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm using Postgresql 7.1beta4 with JDBC, and I was wondering if I should go=
 to the trouble of modifying my connection pool to manage two pools, once w=
ith setAutoCommit(false) and the other with setAutoCommit(true).

As it is, I turne off auto commit since in my transaction processing, I nee=
d to control the commit/rollback.

But, there are also a lot of cases where I'm doing a simple query and I don=
't need transaction isolation, per se.  Is the performance better if I use =
auto-commit than if I SELECT and do a commit() myself? And is there any ben=
efit to doing a rollback on a select instead of a commit, since nothing cha=
nged?

Would there be a benefit with auto commit off if I had to do several differ=
ent SELECTs, since I'd only have to do one commit at the end instead of the=
 autocommits after each step?

Thanks,
David

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0AB10.0E18B2E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm using Postgresql 7.1beta4 with JDBC, a=
nd I was=20
wondering if I should go to the trouble of modifying my connection pool to=
=20
manage two pools, once with setAutoCommit(false) and the other with=20
setAutoCommit(true).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As it is, I turne off auto commit since in=
 my=20
transaction processing, I need to control the commit/rollback.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>But, there are also a lot of cases where I=
'm doing=20
a simple query and I don't need transaction isolation, per se.&nbsp; Is the=
=20
performance better if I use auto-commit than if I SELECT and do a commit()=
=20
myself? And is there any benefit to doing a rollback on a select instead of=
 a=20
commit, since nothing changed?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Would there be a benefit with auto commit =
off if I=20
had to do several different SELECTs, since I'd only have to do one commit a=
t the=20
end instead of the autocommits after each step?<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>David</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0AB10.0E18B2E0--